Ravinder Singh @ Pappu vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 September, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on: September 12, 2017
% Judgment Delivered on: September 19, 2017

+ CRL.A. 425/2017

RAVINDER SINGH @ PAPPU ….. Appellant
Through: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate
with appellant in custody

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant Ravinder Singh @ Pappu has impugned the
judgment dated 28th January, 2017 and the order on sentence dated 31st
January, 2017 whereby he has been convicted for committing the
offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo
RI for seven years with pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo SI for one month.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 28th October, 2015 on
receipt of DD No.11A Ex.PW-9/D at PS Mehraulli, the investigating
officer reached the place of occurrence where they met the
complainant/prosecutrix ‘D’ – PW-1 (name withheld to conceal the
identity), who complained about being raped in the morning at about

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 1 of 12
5.00 am at her own residence by the appellant Ravinder Singh, who is
her husband’s cousin’s son (husband ke mama ke ladke ka ladka).
She also informed that after being raped, she managed to come out of
the room and bolted the appellant Ravinder Singh in the room. She
informed her husband Sh.Bhupender Singh – PW-5 on his phone about
the incident and PCR was informed. The prosecutrix was sent for
medical examination. The accused/appellant was also got medically
examined and after completion of the investigation accused Ravinder
Singh was sent to face trial for committing the offence under
Section
376 IPC.

3. The prosecution examined twelve numbers of witnesses
including the prosecutrix.

4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
appellant/accused admitted having visited the house of the prosecutrix,
PW-1 in the morning but claimed the date to be 29th October, 2015
and not on 28th October, 2015 i.e. the date of occurrence. He stated
that he had tea with the prosecutrix in the presence of her husband and
father in law and thereafter, he left their house to visit his another
uncle Sh.Balbir Singh (elder brother of husband of the prosecutrix)
who was living nearby.

5. When he was questioned about him being found bolted inside
the room and taken out of the room of the prosecutrix by the police on
28th October, 2015, he admitted that he was taken out of that room by
the police but again insisted that the date was 29 th October, 2015. He
admitted that he was medically examined and subjected to potency
test. As per his MLC Ex. PX, there is nothing to suggest that he is

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 2 of 12
incapable of performing the sexual intercourse. On being questioned
as to why this case was against him, he stated that only prosecutrix can
tell as to why she has falsely implicated him. The prosecutrix used to
call him a drug addict and that is why she filed this false case.

6. After considering the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
especially the prosecutrix and the medical and scientific evidence,
learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty under
Section 376 IPC for
the following reasons:-

(i) The testimony of the prosecutrix is that on the date of incident
her husband left for work at about 5.00 a.m. and accused entered her
house after 15 minutes thereafter. Then he left for the house of her
husband’s brother but returned at about 7.00 a.m. when her father-in-
law left for Gurudwara. The testimony of the prosecutrix to the effect
that in the absence of her husband and father-in-law, the appellant
entered in her room, closed the door from inside and pushed her on
bed and committed rape on her though she pleaded with him to spare
her as she was just like his mother, has been proved by her.

(ii) Her statement that after being pushed she could manage to
come out of the room and bolt the door of the room from outside when
the accused was still inside, has been corroborated by Ajay, PW-3
who found the prosecutrix weeping and on being asked about the
reason, she informed that she had been raped by the accused Ravinder
Singh and then the police control room was informed.

(iii) Testimony of PW-1, prosecutrix has been corroborated by her
husband, PW-5 who stated that he left his house on 28 th October, 2015
at about 5.00 a.m. leaving behind his wife and father. He also deposed

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 3 of 12
that he received a call of his wife after about 1 ½ hours thereafter. She
informed him about being raped by the accused Ravinder Singh.

(iv) The incident was promptly reported and FIR exhibit PW-9/A
was registered on the same day. Dr.Chitra proved the MLC of the
prosecutrix Ex. PW-1/B. The alleged history of the sexual assault was
given by the PW-1 which was noted on her MLC Ex.PW-1/B prepared
on 28th October, 2015 at 11.45 a.m.

(v) The RFSL result Ex.PW-11/A proved that human semen was
detected on the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix, Ex.1.; vulval swab of
the prosecutrix, Ex. 2 and Ex.8B i.e. the Salwar, Ex.P3. The DNA
profile generated from the source of the vaginal swab of the
prosecutrix, Ex.1.; vulval swab of the prosecutrix, Ex. 2 and Ex.8B i.e.
the Salwar, Ex.P3 matched with the DNA profile generated from the
source of Ex.11 i.e. the blood in gauze collected from the accused.

7. The appellant, who is undergoing sentence, is being represented
by Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate appointed by Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee.

8. The appellant is challenging his conviction inter-alia on the
following grounds:-

(i) The learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant without
appreciating the material contradictions appearing in the testimony of
the prosecutrix.

(ii) The version of the prosecutrix that she was threatened by the
appellant, has not been proved and the appellant has been acquitted of
the charge under
Section 506 IPC.

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 4 of 12

(iii) The prosecutrix was not even able to recollect the date of
incident. It is unbelievable that a lady can forget the date and time of
occurrence in respect of which she has undergone trauma and even
initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant by getting the FIR
registered.

(iv) Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per the
statement of PW-1, the prosecutrix the accused visited her house at
7.00 a.m. after her father-in-law left for Gurudwara and then
committed rape but as per statement of her husband, PW-5 he received
a phone call from the prosecutrix at about 6.00-6.30 a.m. informing
about the alleged incident. Despite being aware her father-in-law was
not at home she stated that she called him by saying papa jee aa jao
which is a material contradictions.

(v) The age difference between the appellant and the prosecutrix is
only of two years. The prosecutrix stated here age to be 42 years
whereas the appellant was 44 years and in that case she cannot claim
herself to be like his mother. The prosecutrix says that her clothes
were torn but when the clothes were exhibited the clothes were not
found torn.

(vi) The prosecutrix deposed that she pushed the appellant and ran
out of the room then why she did not push him when he was forcing
himself upon her.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecutrix were
sufficient to discard her version and the Court should not have
convicted the appellant on the basis of her testimony. In support of her

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 5 of 12
submissions learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in
the case of Biri Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1992 SCC (Cr) 915
wherein it was held that:

“the points and the testimonies which are in the nature of
omissions, contradictions and exaggerations compel this
Court to arrive to a conclusion that the evidence is
tainted its interestedness and that it is unsafe to act upon
his evidence and that he is unsafe to act upon his
evidence and that he is not coming forward with the
truth”

10. This appeal being jail appeal and the appellant being
represented by the legal aid counsel, who argued in the presence of the
appellant, the appellant was also given an opportunity to make
submissions if he so desired. The appellant submitted before this
Court that he was sitting in the adjoining house of the brother of the
husband of the prosecutrix and he was doing ‘Paath’ (worship) when
he was called by the prosecutrix at her house. The appellant submitted
that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her consent
but he does not know why she informed the police. Though no such
suggestion was given to the PW-1 – the prosecutrix when she appeared
in the witness box and nor any such defence was taken during trial or
his examination under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.

11. The entire prosecution case stand proved beyond reasonable
doubt from the statement of the prosecutrix, which has been duly
corroborated by the statement of PW-3, who saw her weeping and
informed the police control room, as well medical and scientific
evidence. The date of incident is 28th October, 2015 as on that date at

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 6 of 12
8.28 a.m. DD No.11A Ex.PW-9/A was recorded on 28th October,
2015. FIR has been registered on 28th October, 2015. The medical
examination of the prosecutrix as well of the accused has been
conducted at AIIMS on 28th October, 2015. So the appellant cannot
take benefit by creating confusion as to the date when he visited the
house of the prosecutrix.

12. Vide DD No.11A Ex.PW-9/D the information given by the
caller was that at house No.1042/8, Mehta Chowk, Mehrauli a
lady has been raped and the accused has been bolted in the house. The
information was conveyed to the SI Rajiv for necessary action. The
appellant admitted that he was taken out of the room by the police.
The appellant cannot take any benefit of minor contradictions or
omissions appearing in the statement of the prosecutrix if she was
unable to recollect the exact time/date of incident or there are some
variations in her testimony about time.

13. In the decision reported as Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 while discussing the evidence
adduced by rustic/illiterate villager held as under:-

“31. In Dimple Gupta (minor) Vs. Rajiv Gupta, (2007) 10
SCC 30, this Court held that a person coming from
altogether different background and having no education
may not be able to give a precise account of the incident.
However, that cannot be a ground to reject his testimony.
The court observed that in a case like rape, “it is
impossible to lay down with precision the chain of events,
more particularly, when illiterate villagers with no sense
of time are involved.”

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 7 of 12

14. When the prosecutrix was examined at AIIMS she had given
the information that she was raped by her husband’s brother’s son
namely Pappu on 28th October, 2015. During her medical examination,
seven khakhi envelope containing vaginal swab, vulval swab, buccal
swab, pubic hair, scalp hair, nail scraping and one big envelope yellow
colour containing clothes and one sample of victim sealed with the
seal of CMO AIIMS Hospital. During the examination of PW-1 – the
prosecutrix, when the sealed pullanda containing salwar Ex.P3, which
the prosecutrix identified to be the same she was wearing at the time
of was produced, there is a Court observation that the stitching near
where the string of the salwar Ex.P3 is tied, has come apart about one
inch.

15. The appellant/accused Ravinder Singh was sent for medical
examination where three plastic container containing blood in gauze,
penile swab control swab and one pullanda white colour containing
underwear one sample seal of him were sealed with the seal of
department of forensic Medicine AIIMS, New Delhi.

16. PW-11, Sh.D.S.Paliwal, Senior Scientific Officer Biology has
proved his report Ex.PW-11/A (collectively) by deposing as under:-

“On 18.11.2015 thirteen sealed parcels were received at RFSL,
Chankayapuri alongwith sample seals. The present case was marked
to me on 01.12.2015 for DNA examination. Upon receipt of the case
parcels i.e. eight parcels were sealed with the seal of CMO AIIMS,
HOPT ND, one parcel was sealed with the seal of AK and remaining
four sealed parcels were sealed with the seal of Department of
Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi. I found that the seals were
intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding letter. I
performed the biological examination on the exhibits excluding
exhibits contained in parcel no.12, 13 and 14. During my biological

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 8 of 12
examination blood was detected on exhibit 11 (blood in gauze of
accused). Blood could not be detected on exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8a,
8b 10. Human semen was detected on exhibit 1 (vaginal swab of
victim), exhibit 2 (vulval swab of victim) and exhibit 8b (lady salwar).
Semen could not be detected on exhibit 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8a and 10. I
further performed DNA examination and it was concluded that the
DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 1 (vaginal swab of
victim), exhibit 2 (vulval swab of victim) and exhibit 8b (lady salwar)
is similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 11
(blood in gauze of accused) the detailed analysis in the form of
annexure 1 and 2 having STR and Y-STR Genotype data of the exhibit
1, 2, 8b and 11 has been enclosed with the report. I prepared my
detail report. Same is Ex.PW11/A (colly) (4 pages) bearing my
signatures at point A on the exhibits.

After examination remnants of the exhibits sent to RFSL
Chanakyapuri have been sealed with the seal of DSP RFSL -Ch- Puri
New Delhi excluding parcel no.12, 13 and 14 which were returned
unexamined as parcel no.11 of the accused is sufficient to conclude
the results of this case.”

17. The conclusions made by PW-11, Sh.D.S.Paliwal, Senior
Scientific Officer Biology are as under:-

“DNA Examination
The source of exhibit ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘8b’ ’11’ were subjected
to DNA isolation. DNA was isolated from the source of
exhibit ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘8b’ ’11’ and DNA profile for the
exhibit ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘8b’ ’11’ were prepared by using Amp
F1 STR Identifier Plus PCR Amplification Kit Amp F1
Y-STR PCR Amplification Kit. STR analysis was used for
the sample. Data was analyzed by using Gene Mapper
ID-X Software.

Result of examination
The alleles from the source of exhibit ’11’ (blood in
Gauze of accused) are accounted in alleles from the
source of exhibit ‘1’ (Cotton wool swab-vaginal swab of

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 9 of 12
victim), exhibit ‘2’ (Cotton wool swab-Vulval swab of
victim) exhibit ‘8b’ (lady salwar).

Conclusion
The DNA Profiling (STR analysis) performed on the
exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the DNA
Profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘1’ (Cotton
wool swab-vaginal swab of victim), exhibit ‘2’ (Cotton
wool swab-Vulval swab of victim) exhibit ‘8b’ (lady
salwar) is similar with the DNA Profile generated from
the source of exhibit ’11’ (blood in Gauze of accused).”

18. This is a case where PW-1/prosecutrix after being subjected to
sexual assault, could manage to bolt the accused inside the room and
despite being in disturbed state of mind and weeping, informed the
police control room and her husband. This statement of the prosecutrix
is duly corroborated by PW-3, Ajay. The appellant cannot seek any
benefit by pointing out that PW-5, husband of the prosecutrix could
not have received any call from her at about 6.00-6.30 p.m. which
needs to be ignored as the rustic villagers cannot be expected to give
exact time with precision and these are not such contradictions which
go to the root of the matter.

19. This is a case where the crime was promptly reported, medical
examination of the victim of sexual assault as well of the person who
committed the sexual assault i.e. the appellant were conducted on the
same day and the medical and scientific evidence proved that it was
the appellant who committed sexual assault on PW-1, his aunt.

20. The age difference of two years between the prosecutrix and the
appellant is not a ground to negate the version of PW-1 that she
wanted the appellant not to violate her body as she was like his mother

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 10 of 12
for the reason that it is not the age difference but the relationship that
was being referred to by the PW-1 while pleading for sparing her
while being sexually abused. It is admitted by the appellant that he
was son of maternal uncle of the husband of the prosecutrix.

21. It is settled legal position that the statement of prosecutrix, if
found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration
and the Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix. In the instant case although no such compelling reason
exists to look for the corroboration. The appellant during trial though
did not take any defence that the sexual intercourse was committed
with the consent of PW-1, irrespective of his submission/admission
before this Court, the evidence adduced in this case by the prosecution
negate the theory of consent. There was no reason for the prosecutrix
who was closely related to him to level charges of rape against the
appellant which had an adverse effect on the reputation of their
families.

22. In the case State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh Ors. 1996
Cri.L.J. 1728 it was observed as under:-

‘The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive
to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting
woman would come forward in a Court just to make a
humiliating statement against her honour such as is
involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases
involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations
which have no material effect on the veracity of the
prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement
of prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are
such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out
an otherwise reliable prosecution case.’

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 11 of 12

23. In the present case the evidence of the prosecutrix, PW-1 has
been duly corroborated by the medical and scientific evidence as well
by the testimony of PW-3 Sh.Ajay and the police officials i.e. PW-4
W/Ct.Baby Yadav and PW-10 W/SI Mukti, who found the accused
bolted inside the room and took him out of the room after reaching the
spot. It is a case where the guilt of the accused that he committed rape
on his own aunt has been proved by oral evidence duly corroborated
by medical scientific evidence beyond reasonable doubt hence he is
not entitled to acquittal.

24. In view of above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with
the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the
minimum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years awarded to the
appellant for committing the offence punishable under
Section 376
IPC.

25. The conviction of the appellant under 376 IPC and sentence
awarded thereunder is upheld.

26. The appeal is dismissed.

27. LCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.

28. Appellant be also informed through the concerned Jail
Superintendent.

PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
‘pg’

CRL.A. No.425/2017 Page 12 of 12

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *